Audio: Fred! talks Mexico, Iraq, and U.S. Attorneys with Laura Ingraham
posted at 4:22 pm on March 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Is it red meat? Is it candy? I think it’s meat candy. And it’s deee-licious. More than 14 minutes of mellifluous conservative goodness, all courtesy of our pal A.J. at the Laura Ingraham Show.
She practically begs him to enter the race. Is this the official start of Fredmania?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Video?
Theworldisnotenough on March 21, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Not video, but it’s infintely better than just having an audio scroll line (especially the left half of that pic ;-)
steveegg on March 21, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Sorry, force of habit.
Allahpundit on March 21, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Fred meat.
MMMMmmmmm, delicious.
Fill up my plate.
fogw on March 21, 2007 at 4:42 PM
No, that would’ve been yesterday, at around 11:50 A.M.
Kid from Brooklyn on March 21, 2007 at 4:43 PM
That guy is running for President. You can hear it in how he answers LI. Finally, a mainstream candidate addressing illegal immigration.
Clark1 on March 21, 2007 at 4:44 PM
About 50 different jokes popped into my head. All of them ban-worthy.
Kid from Brooklyn on March 21, 2007 at 4:46 PM
I think Fred seems like a great potential candidate, but if he does officially enter the race and is subject to the intense media scrutiny of the other candidates, he’ll suddenly seem very small and uninteresting. It’s like when you start dating a girl – everything’s exciting and new, she’s got a good sense of humor, she’s fun to hang out with, and you just want to keep hanging out with her…
Then you sleep with her for the first time and it’s like “Oh, that was it? She’s pretty much like every other girl.” It doesn’t mean she’s not great, but she stops being special. If Fred enters the race, he becomes just another assclown politician.
Ladies, feel free to reverse the gender roles in that example – I’m pretty sure it works both ways.
Enrique on March 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM
She brought Thompson’s name up on FNC yesterday. She kept a straight face, but there was a real twinkle in her eye. She said, “There is excitement. I can feel it.” Or something similar.
Connie on March 21, 2007 at 4:49 PM
CitizenJim on March 21, 2007 at 4:52 PM
But, Enrique. What if the sex is fantastic?
harrison on March 21, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Sticking in my craw…
One of the good guys…
They need to cooperate with us….
No amnesty….
Border security has to be first….
Pig in a poke…
Play by the rules…
Another nickle for a banana…
Civilians beating on the undercarriage of helicopters…
Tempest in a teapot…
No…
Credibility and resolve…
B Team….
There is a date certain…
Not to brokeback this moment but this is the man we need! Way to push him Laura….there is a groundswell that truly wants this man on the ticket.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 4:53 PM
OK, that’s it, where do I mail my check for his campaign coffers??
corbettw on March 21, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Wow! Fred Thompson in 08, if we are looking for the Reagan factor in 08 he is it. He is level headed, articulate and he is so genuine in what he says.
Sven on March 21, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Can’t stand any of the other candidate
Would only vote for any of the Repubs now running out of lesser evil status
made phone calls in ‘00, and ‘04, but not looking to do it again unless……
GO, FRED, GO
Vanquisher on March 21, 2007 at 4:57 PM
HuffPo D-list celebs are small and uninteresting… but Fred Thompson hits you like an atom bomb.
Remember, he’s Fred Thompson.
ScottMcC on March 21, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Mitt, Fred, Rudy, Newt…..The new Fab Four!
soulsirkus on March 21, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Fred Thompson told the sun to cool down, and the sun complied. Global warming fears eased.
Now on to illegal immigration and the War on Terror…
jaleach on March 21, 2007 at 5:04 PM
The only question I have about him is what are his management skills like?
Other than that, he if Fred Friggin Thompson Dammit!!
Back o’ the bus with the rest of you clowns.
bbz123 on March 21, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Can you just imagine a debate between Fred and Hillary? When they shake hands and he towers over her? Election over.
jaleach on March 21, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Is this wrong? I just put this poster up on my bedroom wall
http://www.lorien1973.com/images/fred-thompson.jpg
lorien1973 on March 21, 2007 at 5:08 PM
lorien…it is missing the ‘S’ on the chest.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Wow, that’s a mighty nice pic of Laura.
Spassvogel on March 21, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Fred has been in show business long enough to know the value of building anticipation.
Slublog on March 21, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Huh?! Thompson is in a league all by himself. Don’t insult him like that please. There’s a good reason he’s so popular right now and it has everything to do with him NOT being in the same category as the others.
Gregor on March 21, 2007 at 5:13 PM
He prefaced his immigration talk with “don’t hold me to it” and then went on to not take a stance on anything.
The only thing that he said that could even be considered a hint of what he might do is when he said we should be “more liberal” ( his words ) on legal immigration…he wants mass immigration.
He also doesn’t criticize Bush’s handling of the immigration issue because “he’s doing what he believes in”.
Perchant on March 21, 2007 at 5:15 PM
If he runs NBC is going to be pee-veed big time. No re-runs until after the election.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 5:15 PM
He’s playing the right like a xylophone.
Please don’t stop the music!
see-dubya on March 21, 2007 at 5:18 PM
If he’ll run, he is the best candidate among the current crop.
The man is a Leader!! There is no question that he can carry the conservative plank. Mitt, Rudy, and Johnny Mac don’t support the conservative cause.
gmaninatl on March 21, 2007 at 5:20 PM
You, know Limerick, there might be some major issues for him contractually there, hadn’t thought about that before.
bbz123 on March 21, 2007 at 5:20 PM
But can he screech like Hillary?
Wade on March 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Were we listening to the same interview?
Question about Kennedy/McCain approach.
Thompson: “Well, it would not be that approach. Of course, as a matter of principle, no…no amnesty. I think that border security has to be first in any approach that we have….In 1986, we went through this you know and bought a pig in a poke – “we are going to take care of the security issues” and they never did and now things are worse than ever…
We have a right as a sovereign nation, if we want to keep the description of sovereign, to secure our own borders.”
I do disagree with what I understand [president Bush's] approach is on it.”
Slublog on March 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM
He will never have to raise his voice, he has that quality.
Sven on March 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Refresh my memory: Didn’t we used to think Fred was a RINO when he was in the Senate?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Quote: “I do disagree with what I understand [president Bush’s] approach is on it…His so-called comprehensive approach places the emphasis on the wrong things.”
As for the “more liberal” comment, it addressed people who “played by the rules.”
Slublog on March 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM
Next on 60 minutes: The cast and crew of Law and Order along with Alec Baldwin who can tell you a few uncomfortable things about Fred during the Hunt for Red October.
There is the soft spot. His peers in Hollyweird.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM
You’re right Penchant. So go ahead and vote for the other top candidates, all of which openly SUPPORT the Bush policy. I mean, we wouldn’t want to be held in the dark having to HOPE a man keeps his word. Might as well just go ahead and make SURE we lose, right?
You also take two words out of his speech regarding visas for technical jobs and slant it into saying he’s for mass immigration. Your comment might be one of the worse examples of misinformation I’ve seen on this site. Luckily, everyone can hear his words for themselves.
I think almost all would agree he was extremely clear of his stance on the issues to the extent that he’s familiar with the details. You DO know he’s not currently in office, right?
Gregor on March 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Fred in ‘08. There is no other choice. All the other candidates wouldn’t touch the immigration issue with a ten foot pole.
The other possibility is Thompson is sending out feelers for the Repubs seeing what kind of reaction he gets.
darwin on March 21, 2007 at 5:32 PM
It’s important to remember that Thompson didn’t get the investigation into Chinagate finished during the weird timeframe…which meant China got the MIRV technology from Clinton and Clinton got off scott-free. And John Glenn blocked the movement of anything happening in the committee investigating Chinagate for like, 8 months. Then got his quid-pro-quo spaceship ride.
I don’t remember all the details but Thompson annoyed me during that time. If China sends off 10 nukes at once using MIRV…ugh…
NTWR on March 21, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Yes.
NTWR on March 21, 2007 at 5:35 PM
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm
there is the voting record.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Great link Limerick, thanks!!
His record looks very conservative (except for the video game restriction – big effing deal).
We could have ourselves an interesting race here folks……..
omnipotent on March 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Yes, this has been posted on the site many times, but there’s really not a lot of info on immigration issues. Not enough to be able to get an idea without knowing the details of the bills in question.
How many? What were the details of the bill?
Nothing wrong with this by itself. The limits and details are what’s important and I can’t seem to dig it up.
This would be very good.
The rest of his voting record is far from RINO material. It’s about as conservative as it gets without being radical.
Gregor on March 21, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Just trying to provide a list of what was up and down with him. I’m sure a quick ‘gaggle’ search on the bill topic will clue everyone in.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 5:55 PM
According to Limerick’s link:
NTWR on March 21, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Sorry ’bout the html… scroll down to the very bottom.
NTWR on March 21, 2007 at 5:56 PM
About that voting record link, this direct quotation worries me: “Fred Thompson on Drugs.”
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 21, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Short answer: heaven only knows. It was actually an amendment to an appropriations bill. Here’s the text of the amendment:
To establish a system of registries of temporary agricultural workers to provide for a sufficient supply of such workers and to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to streamline procedures for the admission and extension of stay of nonimmigrant agricultural workers, and for other purposes.
So he wasn’t just opening the floodgates – but easing the process for an H2A visa – legal entry into the U.S.
Slublog on March 21, 2007 at 6:00 PM
I’d vote for him, but he’s got to fire Jack McCoy.
Iblis on March 21, 2007 at 6:04 PM
I believe that if Thompson was for open borders, amnesty, or any other form of immigration related nonsense … we wouldn’t have heard him slam Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales is a huge piece of Bush’s puzzle on the issue.
Gregor on March 21, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Laura is right about Fred Thompson being the most exciting Republican candidate to appear to date.
Fred Thompson makes sense, is plain spoken, appears to be trustworthy (if that term can be applied to any politician other than Washington, Lincoln, or Teddy Roosevelt), and has the same ideas on major issues that the majority of Americans do.
Fred Thompson would be a choice to be excited about, a choice for positive developments instead of a choice on who would do the least amount of harm.
I hope Laura Ingram has a serious set of conversations with him about running.
omegaram on March 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Anyone who says “it’s been stickin’ in my craw” has my vote.
John from OPFOR on March 21, 2007 at 6:21 PM
You actually took a long story he told about how wonderful immigration is, I could almost hear the violins as he was speaking, and how he thinks we need to be “more liberal” about immigration, by focusing on the technical aspect he tacked on at the end of the whole thing. The misinformation is coming from you.
What precisely would Thompson do as president? When he tells us “Don’t hold me to it”…what am I supposed to not hold him to?
And then you tell me he’s not clear on the details of the issues. Am I supposed to assume that his positions will become more conservative once he’s clear on the details? Am I supposed to infer that because he has a charming homespun speaking voice?
Perchant on March 21, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Really? I suggest you listen to the interview again, as you have once again misrepresented the “more liberal” quote.
Why?
Slublog on March 21, 2007 at 6:30 PM
uh, maybe it is the women you choose that you get that response? I dunno. My husband married me almost immediately thereafter in your scenario. And he we are 25 years later.
I like Duncan Hunter, so its a Hunter/Thompson Thompson/Hunter for me.
CrimsonFisted on March 21, 2007 at 6:34 PM
See, my sex analogy totally cuts both ways. (Assuming lorien’s a girl.)
But to reiterate the serious point, I don’t think we should kid ourselves by elevating anyone who runs for President to iconic status. At the end of the day, he’s just a guy with a job. It’s just that the job of being President is more time-consuming, demands more attention, and the people who hold it tend to become corrupted by the power. The mistakes are amplified and the successes are only noticed if they’re brilliant. But in the end, it’s just a job, and the people who get to decide the qualifications for the job are by and large confused and underinformed.
I think Fred Thompson is terrific on L&O and I’m sure he’d be a great guy to have a beer with, but if he becomes President he’ll just become another loser like Bush or Clinton. Ralph Nader had a point – it doesn’t matter who wins the election, because the end result is always the same. I think that was Ralph’s point anyway.
Enrique on March 21, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Perchant, please bless us all with YOUR pick for President. The guy (or woman) who’s going to beat all the other current open border candidates. The candidate who’s MORE conservative than Fred Thompson … and actaully has a chance to win.
Bless us all with your knowledge, please!
Gregor on March 21, 2007 at 6:46 PM
On the issues their are some great votes and some not so great (McCain-Feingold). But all and all, looking over the voting record, I don’t find much to complain about.
As far as ‘homespun’..yep, the boy be home spun and corn fed. It adds to the likeability and electability. Americans love their heroes, both real and fictional ‘homespun’….Franklin, Huck Finn, Tom Sawyer, Mark Twain, O’Henry, Will Rogers, Ernie Pyle, Truman, Jed Clampett, Forrest Gump…..something hits the ‘authentic’ button. Fred has it. It makes you want to listen to him.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Everyone will hear it and judge for themselves…and they will wonder why you are trying to misrepresent it.
The “more liberal” quote came before the technical job part and referred to what came before it. After that he said “we certainly” need to let in the technical people.
Perchant on March 21, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Gregor,
You know who I like. Tancredo or Hunter are the only ones who speak like they mean it. Maybe someone else will come along but I’m not going to buy into any new immigration conversions by any of the known amnesty promoters or candidates who didn’t enforce immigration laws in the cities or states they governed.
Perchant on March 21, 2007 at 7:04 PM
Really? Everyone seems pretty excited about Thompson, and believes he’s strong on immigration. His voting record shows a similar strength.
Here’s the full quote:
Clearly, we need an overall sound immigration program. We need to let people in here that we decide to come in here. We all know them and we all have people in our homes and otherwise who are wonderful people, and who played by the rules, and came into this country and perhaps we ought to be more liberal in that respect. We certainly should be with regard to these high tech specialist people in various areas that we’re so lacking in many industries and we can address all that. But don’t tell me we can’t do it because I’m going to have to pay an extra nickel for a banana.
Slublog on March 21, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Does it? Reagan was different. He got an opposing senate and house to give him (most of) what he wanted. He was a leader. I’d agree that Clinton=Bush in most aspects, but you can’t base future performance on past results when it comes to candidates.
Problem is, is that washington simply does too much and its become unmanageable. Until more is delegated back to the states, I think it’ll always be crap in, crap out up there.
lorien1973 on March 21, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Perchant I think you are hearing something you want to hear in his answers. What I heard Mr. Thompson say on immigration was number one secure our border, you can’t do anything else before you stop the flood. His exact words were “as a matter of principal, no amnesty” Is that too straight forward of an answer for you to comprehend? He is opposed to giving amnesty, we decide who can stay and not based on what they have to offer this country not based on me having to spend an extra nickel for a banana. His “perhaps we need to be a little more liberal in that respect” he’s refering to our right to choose who gets a visa, and to actually offer more visas to people with tech degrees and work experience not to banana farmers. By the way, immigration, when done properly, is a wonderful thing. My great grandparents were immigrants, and they did it the legal way, it’s the least we should expect of an immigrant today. He’s got the star quiality that everyone seems to want in a candidate today, but he has one quality nobody else has, he answers questions clearly. I even heard him answer the question “do you think Gonzales has done a good job?” with one word “no”, it is refreshing to hear a politician be so straightforward in answering questions.
Thompson/? in 08′
NeverSubmit on March 21, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Please list Thompson’s firm immigration stances for me. By “firm stances” I mean those that weren’t qualified with a “maybe we could” or a “perhaps we should” or a “don’t hold me to it”. Thanks in advance.
Perchant on March 21, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Did y’all catch this?:
Fred: “…don’t hold me to it forever — I haven’t examined all the details in the way that I will be…”
He’s running. :-D
Tuning Spork on March 21, 2007 at 7:52 PM
Thompson on Immigration.
He’s also actually voted against welfare for immigrants – S.947.
What’s wrong with qualifiers? Saying “maybe we should” or “perhaps we could” is not saying we won’t – it’s called “brainstorming” and your focus on it is really a rather weak argument to make.
Slublog on March 21, 2007 at 8:00 PM
That’s the issue I couldn’t remember! I was really disappointed that he had let that ultra liberal, John Glenn, out flank him on that committee. The lady’s man, Komrade Klinton, got away with a big one. Sad.
So what do you think? Has he learned anything? Is he worthy?
Zorro on March 21, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Who is in all of our homes? I didn’t get that. If these people he is referring to are already in all of our homes and he wants to further liberalize that…what does it mean?
Is he talking about his servants and thinks we all have servants in our homes?
Perchant on March 21, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Right Said Fred.
digitalintrigue on March 21, 2007 at 8:44 PM
It’s quite clear he’s not.
It’s also quite clear you’re not going to ever see anything good about this man, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Slublog on March 21, 2007 at 9:19 PM
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
Pete Townshend
Labamigo on March 21, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Well put. He’s too sexy for losing in ‘08.
Folks, compare the Republican field going into ‘08 with the Dhemocrat field. You have Madam Hillary, Barack (I was a teenage Muslim) Obama, John (Silky Pony) Edwards, and Joe (who) Biden, on the left.
The Republicans have Giuliani, Gingrich, Romney, McCain, others, and please-please-please Thompson. If we lose this one in ‘08 it will be our fault entirely.
Mojave Mark on March 21, 2007 at 10:28 PM
“He had me at “pig in a poke”……..” (sniff) “He had me at “pig in a poke”……. (tears) (cue the music for “Jerry McQuire“)
PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 10:37 PM
He doesnt stand a chance at getting the nomination, but what he will do is (hopefully) push the other GOP candidates to the right a bit.
Labamigo on March 21, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Ralph Nader couldn’t make a point with a knife.
rokemronnie on March 21, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Fred would be a welcome addition. I like what I hear, but I’m not ready to beatify him. Heck, I voted for Alan Keyes in the primary in ‘00. Let him in and put him through the meat grinder. That’s what the primary process is for.
There’s a long way to go boys and girls. For right now; the more the merrier. It’s the real definition of “diversity”.
HerrMorgenholz on March 21, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Now personally, I think it’s wide open. There’s a TON of money waiting to go to the guy who’s got the mustard.
Mojave Mark on March 21, 2007 at 10:47 PM
LOL!
SisterToldjah on March 21, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Your wrong….nasty wrong.
spazzmomma on March 21, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Oh,and shouldn’t we know something by the end of this month when all the candidates are to declare campaign contributions?
That would be fine with me.
spazzmomma on March 21, 2007 at 11:22 PM
I demand Fred Thompson run for President, with Capt. Marko Ramius as his VP! (Damn, I love that movie)
JG2K6 on March 21, 2007 at 11:23 PM
What is that statement based on? Looking at his record, admittedly he isn’t the second coming of Reagan, but he looks better than Tancredo or Hunter to me.
In any event, it’s a sure bet it’ll get interesting if Fred officially enters the race.
I guess the best way to summarize my feelings is “cautious optimism”. Most of us have been around long enough to see the wheels come off at a moments notice, so let’s temper our enthusiasm until we can get some policy and platform positions from ole’ Fred. We’ll also know it’s serious when Katie or Chris Matthews dig some irrelevent factoid up in an attempt to “Bork” our boy.
BacaDog on March 21, 2007 at 11:32 PM
Okay, yes… I’d love to have Tancredo but it’s becoming more and more obvious every day that Tancredo has absolutely no chance to win. Why? It’s all Allah Pundit’s fault! Okay, just kidding Allah.
But really, a good percentage of conservatives mock the man and believe he’s a joke. Do I agree? Absolutely not, but I’ve learned that I’m not going to be able to change the minds of 20 million people.
Not only is he mocked by a good portion of those who SHOULD know better, but he’s completely unknown to everyone else because the media absolutely refuses to even mention his name.
I want Tancredo, but it’s not going to happen.
As for this being the answer to my question, I have to repeat what I wrote …
The difference between this month from last month is that now … we actually have an alternate choice who has the capability to win, and who doesn’t guarantee a liberal President. Make up your mind. Do you want Giuliani (open borders), McCain (open borders), Romney (”comprehensive immigration reform), or … Fred Thompson? The bottom line is that these are your choices. You can put your X next to Tancredo’s name if you want, which is what I planned on doing, but as you can see by the reaction in here … it’s a lost cause.
Trust me. I’ve spent a year in here trying to change voters minds during the mid-terms, and lately on Tancredo. I’ve learned it’s hopeless to try. I’ll be happy to take Thompson and thank God that I don’t get Giuliani.
Gregor on March 22, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Two words: Jimmy Carter. It’s politics dude, anything can happen.
I really do think that the Republicans are going to have a lot of fun this next year. Great debate, great ideas, and a great new pattern for the drapes. For most conservatives our ultimate hope doesn’t lie with politicos but with Jesus Christ so sit back and enjoy the ride. Hey, it’s only politics!
Mojave Mark on March 22, 2007 at 12:31 AM
This man can speak. We haven’t had an oritor since Ronald Reagan, who he of course doesn’t want to be compaired to (mainly because he knows it’s a losing battle).
Obama is going to smack Hilary 540degrees with his speaking ability, Fred is one to meet this challenge.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 22, 2007 at 1:26 AM
This Thompson thing rather reminds me of chats I used to have with my teenage girlfriends: Paul is so dreamy…I love Ringo’s eyes. Good grief.
honora on March 22, 2007 at 8:06 AM
I have seen some interviews when Fred doesn’t speak very well. He comes off as being uninformed and it seems to happen when he is being challenged or asked to get into more detail.
He sounds real good when he is just using rhetoric but the real test will be when he has to debate someone who wants to destroy him.
csdeven on March 22, 2007 at 8:42 AM
But have you heard Fred’s voice? Swoon! :-)
Slublog on March 22, 2007 at 8:51 AM
“Patreus is the right man at the right time.”
Yeah, nothing like trying to fight yourself out of a hole while the Dems are throwing rocks down on you…
Babs on March 22, 2007 at 8:56 AM
Man, I love Fred Thompson. What a badass! Please jump in Fred!
msipes on March 22, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Sweet!!
Law and Order’s ratings are going south (that’s the problem with wall to wall syndication, hell of a run though) so Fred will be looking for work!
honora on March 22, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Fred doesn’t look for work, work looks for Fred. IMDB
- The Cat
MirCat on March 22, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Comment pages: